Burying CO2 Is Cool Opinion Article

Sep 23, 2014 - 2:47pm

This article first appeared in the October issue of Australasian Science.

Olivia Kember    
National Policy & Research Manager, The Climate Institute

Using technologies to capture carbon dioxide produced by power stations and industries and pump it back underground features prominently in scenarios for achieving the agreed global goal of avoiding warming above 2°C – yet it remains deeply contentious.

In many of these scenarios, carbon capture and storage (CCS) needs to be applied not just to coal and gas power but to industrial processes like cement production and even bio-energy generation. Bio-energy with CCS (“bio-CCS”) isn’t just carbon neutral, it could be carbon-negative. Applying CCS as biomass is combusted or fermented to produce energy largely removes the carbon dioxide it absorbed from the air from the carbon cycle.

A recent study by the Potsdam Institute finds that without bio-CCS, achieving the 2°C goal becomes twice as expensive, and limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C becomes impossible. If emissions slightly overshoot our targets, or the climate turns out to be more sensitive than anticipated, bio-CCS can help us recover.


As one of the developed nations most vulnerable to climate change, it is strongly in Australia’s national interest to advance critical emission reduction technologies.


However, CCS is regarded with suspicion by some green groups and fossil fuel industries. Some environmentalists oppose public financing for CCS but support policies that could drive demand for CCS, such as prices and limits on emissions. Fossil fuel representatives welcome public money for research but campaign against policies that would encourage CCS deployment.  

Oddly, both sides sometimes agree that CCS is not yet viable, but every aspect of the technology has been proven. There are now twelve operational large-scale CCS projects globally, with a further nine due to open by 2016.

The high cost of CCS is also often cited, but further development and deployment will bring costs down. After trialling CCS on one unit of its Boundary Dam coal power station in Saskatchewan, Canadian utility SaskPower plans to fit CCS to other units. It estimates the next unit will cost 30 per cent less to construct and 20 per cent less to run.

These steps forward, are, however, nowhere near enough. In a recent report the International Energy Agency warned that “the rate of capture and storage must increase by two orders of magnitude in the next decade” to be on track to the 2°C goal. Without CCS, recently-built power stations would have to close and emerging economies would have to abandon coal altogether - both very expensive and difficult to do. In addition, many industries such as cement production have no viable alternatives to make deep cuts in emissions.

For bio-CCS, perhaps the biggest challenge is to ensure that production of biomass for energy neither undermines food production nor encourages detrimental land-use change. One way is to explore the production of “advanced” feedstocks, such as algae, pongamia and coppicing species.

As one of the developed nations most vulnerable to climate change, it is strongly in Australia’s national interest to advance critical emission reduction technologies. Our fossil resources also provide us with a strong incentive to encourage the roll-out of CCS.  Moreover, we have an abundant supply of agricultural residues (one of the more sustainable biomass sources) and a large natural geological storage potential both on and offshore.

Recent modelling by The Climate Institute and Jacobs SKM found that by 2050, the use of bio-CCS in Australian electricity production could remove and displace 63 million tonnes of CO2 per year (the same as 1.5 times emissions from Australia’s current cars), all using current levels of waste biomass. If the technology starts coming online commercially from about 2030, the cumulative savings total 780 million tonnes from now to 2050.

A big question remains over whether the level of bioenergy needed could be produced in a socially and ecologically sustainable manner. These risks don’t mean we shouldn’t consider the potential of bio-CCS or other carbon removal technologies, they mean we need to work out how to do it properly.

To get there from here we need targeted investment in developing both bioenergy and CCS technologies. But we also need a reliable reward system for carbon removal. And the best such system remains, despite all the political hot air, a strong, stable carbon price. 

Olivia Kember

Olivia is Head of Policy at The Climate Institute. She has worked in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand across the fields of journalism, diplomacy and resources. Olivia has provided policy analysis and advice for the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the NSW Minerals Council. She was the recipient of a Fulbright award to study in the United States and holds an MA in Security Studies from the University of Georgetown

Email   Print   Subscribe
Contact us. For further information. Follow us. Join the conversation.
 
Sydney

Level 15, 179 Elizabeth St.
Sydney NSW 2000
Tel   +61 2 8239 6299
Fax   +61 2 9283 8154
info@climateinstitute.org.au
 
 
Site Map
 
 
 
 
 
PLATFORM + DESIGN BY GLIDER